In my last post The gift transformed into a debt I pointed out a group of traditional conservative women who were shamelessly discussing what men owe them, even down to when it might or might not be appropriate for a man to enter a lifeboat. I have to say I’m still stunned at the discussion. I can’t understand how a group of people can so casually discuss the way others must sacrifice for them, because those others aren’t worth as much as they are. The thing is, these conversations feel very normal for most women. I doubt they have ever been called on how incredibly crass it is. How can they possibly think this is ok? Do they have no shame whatsoever?

Commenter Deti entered Sheila’s blog and had a polite exchange with her:

There’s a difference between a man holding a door for his wife, and holding the door for a stranger woman. He has moral obligations to protect his wife. He has no obligations, moral or otherwise, to the stranger.

It used to be that men came to the aid of women — any women — who obviously needed help. Any man who does this now might find himself scolded, excoriated or even accused of harassment.

No one should be surprised that it has come to this. Feminist society has made sure that men feel wary of ever interacting publiclly or privately with any woman they are not related to. And frankly, the church has done scant little to combat this, instead in many instances joining forces with feminism to promote female “equality” over biblical principles.

Deti, I’d disagree with your assessment that he has no obligations to the stranger. By saying that, then you’re giving in to the feminist mentality.

If honour and respect are universal, then we do have moral obligations to each other, even strangers. We have obligations to honour and respect them, and one of the ways to do that would be to hold a door open. If feminists get mad about that, that’s really their problem, because they’re the ones who are forgetting the universal and timeless principles, not the one holding the door.

Yes, feminists have created this society, but that does not mean that we have to give in to it.

The false claim here is that women like Sheila are different than those feminists who want to free women from accountability to men. Because of this, men must still be responsible for women like her. The truth is that Sheila and arguably most traditional conservative women are really just feminist-lite. For example, consider her post When the world isn’t safe for women, where Sheila contemplated the Laura Logan incident:

I think sometimes we forget how vulnerable women can be. I am not saying that Ms. Logan acted foolishly; she likely knew what she was risking, and CBS likely did, too, and she chose to go anyway. That is what reporters do, and it is a risk they are willing to take. Male reporters and cameramen have been attacked, kidnapped, beaten, and killed, too, in the Middle East this year. It’s a dangerous job, but a lucrative and rewarding one, and I guess she took a risk that in retrospect was too much.

Laura Logan is a woman, what’s wrong with a little roar? you might say. After all, women are adults who can make their own choices and accept the accompanying risk.

Not quite. To Sheila women are adults until they need men, in which case they more resemble an unattended eight year old. From her exchange with Deti:

…given how vulnerable women are, I do think that men should watch over women if they’re in a potentially dangerous situation, in the same way that if I see a child under 8 walking around alone in a mall, I immediately stop what I’m doing and make sure there’s a caregiver in sight. That child is nothing to me, but what kind of person would I be if I didn’t check to make sure the child was safe?

Isn’t that just a little bit paternalistic to compare women to unattended children? Why yes, but only if we are talking about limiting women’s choices. Sheila explains in her Lara Logan post (emphasis mine):

…I don’t think we should kid ourselves about women in combat. They aren’t safe; they just aren’t. And women are at a far greater risk when they are in combat than men, because if we are captured, far worse things are almost guaranteed to be done to us than will ever be done to a man.

Should a country allow women to be raped or killed, when there are able bodied men not serving in the military? Even if those women are willing to take the risk?

That’s a tough question. Lara Logan was willing to take the risk, and it didn’t turn out well. But it was still her decision, and to say that she can’t go because she’s a woman seems paternalistic. It’s like saying that a woman can’t decide to be a missionary in a dangerous land, even if she feels called to do so, because it may be dangerous. We applaud women who risk their lives for the sake of the gospel; obviously no gospel is involved in what Ms. Logan was doing, but I don’t think we can say one is wrong and the other right. In both cases, women are taking the responsibility for themselves on themselves.

126 Responses to Women have rights, men have responsibilities.

Sheila Gregoire – ”Should a country allow women to be raped or killed, when there are able bodied men not serving in the military?”

Wow! I’m not quite sure what to make of this statement.

Is this shaming language towards men who chose not to serve in the military? Is this a suggestion that women should not serve, and that “able bodied men” who are “not serving” should be conscripted to meet military manpower demands?

Or is it just an extension of her (and that of numerous other women on her blog) opinion that where ever danger might lurk, able bodies men MUST either take it upon themselves to put themselves in a submissive posture of servitude to and sacrifice for random strange women (regardless of age, physical stature, or even the quality of person that they are), less that DUTY be forced on them by the state?

I’m not going to take the time to read her blog to get the full context of her statement (at least not a the moment as I have some pressing matters to attend to), so, perhaps someone would be kind enough to offer an explanation of her meaning therein?

“But it was still her decision, and to say that she can’t go because she’s a woman seems paternalistic. ”
No matter what she says, a woman does not want you to be dominant, that it “paternalistic” she wants a wimp she can boss around, but who THINKS he is dominant. To be actually dominant would be paternalistic, and she would quickly claim victimhood status.

Women: a victim when she wants, dominant when she wants, you, as a man, are simply her device to facilitate those things. YOU do not exist to a woman, YOU as a “Cogito ergo sum” concious being do not exist to her. You are a device, and when your utility is gone, so will she.

Is this shaming language towards men who chose not to serve in the military? Is this a suggestion that women should not serve, and that “able bodied men” who are “not serving” should be conscripted to meet military manpower demands? ”

To paraphrase my favourite author, and my favourite short-story:

And you are not you to a woman – you have no body, no blood, no bones, you are but a tool. I myself have no existence; I am but a tool – a womans tool, a \=device of her imagination. In a moment she will have realized this, then she will banish me from her visions and I shall dissolve into the nothingness out of which she made me

It is shaming language because a man who does not die for a woman has no utility, and is a poor slave. The White Feather Campaign is an example. You (yes you) must die to protect a womans right to vaccuum out her offspring and refuse to mate with you. Get back in the fields slave, and know your place!

“…given how vulnerable women are, I do think that men should watch over women if they’re in a potentially dangerous situation, in the same way that if I see a child under 8 walking around alone in a mall, I immediately stop what I’m doing and make sure there’s a caregiver in sight.”

1. If I see a woman being attacked by a man, I assume he is her boyfriend (and she probably loves him very much). I’ll call the police but I won’t intervene. God knows, she’d more likely attack me than not.

I know it’s counterintuitive, but how many times do we have to see a woman bodily defend her abuser before we learn not to white knight?

“And women are at a far greater risk when they are in combat than men, because if we are captured, far worse things are almost guaranteed to be done to us than will ever be done to a man.”

2. Rape is worse than torture or execution?

Hyperbole has limits as a rhetorical device, and starts to come off dissimulative.

I just read through Deti’s comments on the WACF thread over there. Holy crap. Sheila kept pulling out a straw man and when american abortions were brought up she got uppity and offended. Socon woman are so much worse than femicunts. All Deti was doing was relaying his experience and she couldn’t understand that.

“And women are at a far greater risk when they are in combat than men, because if we are captured, far worse things are almost guaranteed to be done to us than will ever be done to a man.”

Her whole post was pretty mind-boggling, cringe-worthy at best, truly delusional at worst, but this really blew my mind. Does she think men are never raped during war? Does she think men aren’t brutally tortured? Not to mention that dying itself is bad enough and during wartime it is mostly the lot of men to die often in most excruciating, horrifying ways. How exactly would a woman’s suffering be somehow greater than a man’s when it comes to such things?!

I’ve encountered this “it’s worse for women” sentiment before but it makes me see red every time.

i would like to think we still have a moral obligation to each other……

and regarding men’s vs. women’s pain, i noticed during pre-natal classes that some of the pain coping exercises being taught were similar to the one’s i used when squatting or dead-lifting in the gym, and made the mistake of saying that to my ex.

she told me that i had no idea the amount of pain women had to endure during child birth, and that to comparing it to lifting weights was demeaning to women.

i thought was that i could help her in her time of pain and that i was identifying and validating her experience, because i wanted her and our child to be safe.

If any women I’m not related to is going to demand that I put myself in harm’s way for her; that I put my own life at risk to protect hers based simply on my male gender and her female gender, then she MUST do the following (and this assumes I’m willing to voluntarily put myself at risk):

1. Do what I tell her, when I tell her, and how I tell her, without question, argument or controversy..
2. Submit to my reasonable directions, guidance and leadership.
3. Accept the sacrifice with appreciation, grace and gratitude, and offer to repay the help.

The moment she deviates in any way from my directions, she’s on her own.

Far be it for me to speak for Sheila, but I suspect her words about giving in to the idea that we shouldn’t help strangers was inspired by Biblical principles as expressed by Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan. But she would have to elaborate on that herself. Here’s my take on the issue concerning the Costa Concordia:

We can’t claim women are equal to and as capable as men in every way and then assert that men should sacrifice themselves to save us because we are incapable of saving ourselves. If we push for women to be afforded the opportunity to go on combat missions, ride in submarines with men in the navy, be corrections officers in male prisons, etc., can we then say that in a situation such as the one on the Costa Concordia, than women are suddenly owed preference as the weaker sex in a crisis? I don’t think we can.

That said, I do think that it is sad to think that men (and surely women as well) aboard this ship were not the least bit inclined to pause to help those who appeared more frail or to help the children. It is indicative of how much of our humanity we have lost when we can’t be bothered to try save anyone besides ourselves. But that’s different from saying that women should be given preference when it suits us.

Just as with Christianity, we would prefer that women be hot or cold on a subject for their position to be palatable. Sheila is neither she is in the happy in-between place where she is equal to men and a lady at the same time. Their is only one word for it. Priviledge. She want’s it and it’s our job to give it to her. If we don’t, then in comes the almighty rationalization hampster to save her. It’s sad. She really is little better than the 8 year old example she used.

Sheila: We have obligations to honour and respect [strangers], and one of the ways to do that would be to hold a door open

No. We have obligations to honour the honourable and respect those deserving of respect, If we do something for those whose merits are unknown to us (strangers), that’s just a courtesy and in no way an obligation. Perhaps in the past it was a good rule of thumb that a random stranger would be found deserving if you came to know him/her, but that certainly isn’t the case today.

That said, I do think that it is sad to think that men (and surely women as well) aboard this ship were not the least bit inclined to pause to help those who appeared more frail or to help the children. It is indicative of how much of our humanity we have lost when we can’t be bothered to try save anyone besides ourselves.

There have been two vague unverified reports (perhaps by the same woman) that men acted badly. There has been at least one verified instance where a man gave his life to save his wife. In another case a man who died focused first on helping children with their life jackets. Yet when the shipwreck comes to mind, you see it as an indictment on present day manhood. Why should men make these sacrifices if so many women will only complain that they didn’t do it the right way? Name one woman or child who died because the ordinary men around them couldn’t be bothered to assist. If not, why slander several thousand men, some of whom gave their lives to help others? I know you most likely don’t intend it this way, but this kind of thinking is so prevalent that I think you have adopted it without really considering it. I find this deeply troubling.

It seems Sheila did not take kindly to the discussion here a few weeks ago because rather than learn anything, she escalated her stance. Instead of tempering her views and admitting any modicum of error she doubled down. It is saddening to see how she thinks women are moral enough to make choices but men are not. It seems that Sheila believes male sexuality must be controlled by women and men merely exist to serve women.

I have paraphrased her advice to a wife who “catches” her husband “using” porn:
1. Snoop and Accuse
2. Control computer with spy reports
3. Tattle to pastor and usurp husband’s authority
4. Restrict sex activities and stop doing most things to arouse him
5. Separate & Divorce

This is the worst advice ever and likely to cause the marriage to fail.

Sheila must be afraid of any male authority. From whence comes her authority to proclaim the truth on these matters? No wonder many men avoid churches and are suspect of traditional “Christian” women.

This WE, we keep hearing, who are WE? Who is the WE Sheila means when we discuss WE? Even a commentator above when discussing what we have lost as a society and what WE should be doing for each other, the WE we are discussing is not the WE these people are actually part of.

WE = Those who have responsibilities (MEN)
we = those involved in the duscussion (Sheila, an above commentator = WOMEN)

2. Taking it personally. Defensiveness. Incorrect attribution of a point as pertaining personally to the blog host. I had to preface nearly every comment with “This is not intended personally” or something like it. I think this is a device intended to shut down debate. You can’t really debate someone who casts everything in personal terms.

3. Solipsism. Viewing everything solely through the prism of one’s own experiences.

4. Deflection. “The Western Christian Church” speaks of that institution and its ethics, culture, mores, customs and traditions which used to dominate western culture, law, politics, business and education. That’s not the case now. It is simply a fact that feminism and secular humanism have almost completely supplanted Christianity’s former cultural, legal, educational and political influences in the west. When someone in these circles speaks of “The Church”, everyone understands what we’re talking about.

The deflection is “Well, the churches I know and attend aren’t like that! We’re still teaching and living according to Biblical principles! So what exactly are you talking about!!??” Well, OK, but come on. Everyone knows exactly what we’re talking about when we say “The Church”. The fact that Christianity retains pockets of influence here and there does not mean it’s culturally dominant.

5. Incorrect attribution of argument: Someone mentioned abortion as affecting women’s right to claim moral superiority and the ability to reproduce and propagate. The response?
—Abortion?! This is a Christian blog! Are you saying we don’t know about abortion!? Of course we do! Many of us have worked in the pro lfe movement. Are you saying the commenters here support abortion!? That’s ridiculous and insulting!

No one on that thread suggested that Gregoire, her commenters, or Christian women in general supported abortion. No one on that thread accused anyone of supporting or not supporting abortion.

Here is the exchange so there are no claims the statements were taken out of context:

Fidel says:
January 24, 2012 at 9:28 am
Keep the population going … I get it.

Rachel, look up stats for abortion in America since Roe vs Wade ….

Sheila says:
January 24, 2012 at 9:53 am
Fidel, what is the matter with you? Are you insinuating that Rachel doesn’t know about abortion? Of course she doesn’t support abortion. This is a Christian blog; many here have worked in the pro-life movement. If you want to participate in a conversation, that’s fine, but just insulting people is not helping anything, and is just showing that you want confrontation rather than a real discussion. To insinuate that Rachel is somehow ignorant of abortion is ridiculous. If you want to insult the commenters (and Rachel is a frequent one), perhaps it would be better for you to read more of this blog and see more of what she stands for.

Are you saying that Christian women agree with abortion? That’s ridiculous, insulting, and speaking as a woman who was told to abort a Down Syndrome child and carried him to term instead, incredibly naive.

Gregoire: “In both cases, women are taking the responsibility for themselves on themselves.”

Yet men have to be responsible for women because they are like lost 8 year olds.

slwerner says:
January 25, 2012 at 11:12 am
“I’m not going to take the time to read her blog to get the full context of her statement (at least not a the moment as I have some pressing matters to attend to), so, perhaps someone would be kind enough to offer an explanation of her meaning therein?”

She’s selfish, self-centered, and oblivious to the illogic of all the things that she thinks society should be.

deti says:
January 25, 2012 at 12:27 pm
“If any women I’m not related to is going to demand that I put myself in harm’s way for her; that I put my own life at risk to protect hers based simply on my male gender and her female gender, then she MUST do the following (and this assumes I’m willing to voluntarily put myself at risk):”

1. Fuck off.

There, fixed it for you.

Blood relatives are a different matter.

Elspeth says:
January 25, 2012 at 12:29 pm

I’m not Christian, but as far as the Good Samaritan goes: Yes, I will help out any man who needs it and can not be a pain in the ass while getting it.

Are you insinuating that Rachel doesn’t know about abortion? Of course she doesn’t support abortion. This is a Christian blog; many here have worked in the pro-life movement. If you want to participate in a conversation, that’s fine, but just insulting people is not helping anything, and is just showing that you want confrontation rather than a real discussion.

How dare anyone insult Rachel! This won’t be tolerated!

Now, if Rachel were to state that men deserve to die to protect women because their lives aren’t worth as much, that would be something entirely different, and wouldn’t merit any censure of Rachel.

Actually Dalrock, I was simply responding to the claims largely accepted without question in the manosphere as well as the MSM, that there was no preference offered to “women and children first.”

And as I said in my above comment, I think we have long discarded the possibility of any such expectation and largely agree with you on that. Any indication that I thought otherwise means that I clearly bungled my attempt to communicate that clearly.

I do believe that Christians will of necessity have a slightly different take on the issue of assisting strangers because our faith and sacred text indicate that we not follow the cultural tide when it comes to that. Yes, a man is bound to protect his own women and children first, and I would never deny that. Just interjecting a possible rationale when Christian bloggers bemoan the lack of concern for others.

These ladies really need to make a decision. Are they in favor of traditionalist relations between the sexes or not? If yes, then I have no criticism of them for expecting protection and deference in dangerous situations from men. But they ought then to also be making a vigorous case for female submission to male authority, in both public and private spheres.

To do otherwise is to demand the right for women to CREATE dangerous situations, and then demand that men die in those situations. This is true in both the military and journalistic contexts that she mentions. There is no question, for instance, that physically inferior female soldiers make life in combat far more dangerous for entire military units. So she is demanding that women be allowed to create such danger (“because fairness”), and then demanding that in the moment of truth, men step forward to be killed, protecting women from the military vulnerabilities they caused.

Either one or the other. But supposed trad-cons cannot let go of the autonomy they’ve obtained through feminism. It is like a drug. And I understand — I woulnd’t want to give up my autonomy either. But, of course, I’m not asking anyone to step forward and die for me because I’m male.

..and it is why, both on the Net, and off, I will not debate with females. Here, where would one start?

Let me say something different therefore, which may be related only tangentially. It is not just that as Aeoli Pera says, that it is not safe to come to the protection of a woman, it is no longer (over here – I don’t know about America) safe even to come to the aid of that eight year old child Sheila Gregoire referred to – not as a man, that is.

I have paraphrased [Sheila’s] advice to a wife who “catches” her husband “using” porn….Restrict sex activities and stop doing most things to arouse him….

In other words, continue and escalate the unwifely behavior that likely inspired the porn use in the first place. He was nearly starving… he looked longingly at someone else’s loaf of bread… as punishment, the little food he did have, was taken away. Will he now look LESS longingly at someone else’s loaf of bread?

Sheila gets uppity when I have (very occasionally) commented on her blog. I’m in permanent moderation and she deleted the last comment I left. LOL Polite disagreement will not be tolerated!

She talks in circles and contradicts herself, applying the “rules” differently to men and women so that she constantly holds men’s feet to the fire while giving women all kinds of excuses and sympathy for their behaviour. No such sympathy for men that I’ve seen.

Of course, she covers her arse by telling women to “put out” sometimes (unless he’s “using” porn because she’s not putting out), but the best lies are 80% true.

Actually Dalrock, I was simply responding to the claims largely accepted without question in the manosphere as well as the MSM, that there was no preference offered to “women and children first.”

This makes it worse. What you said (and what I quoted) was:

That said, I do think that it is sad to think that men (and surely women as well) aboard this ship were not the least bit inclined to pause to help those who appeared more frail or to help the children.

At least two men died who put women and children first. Yet because men as a whole didn’t provide the full “women and children first” experience women have come to expect from romantic movies where over 1,000 men die so women won’t be crowded in the lifeboats, men have somehow failed women.

By the way, I know I’m fired up on this, and I can’t imagine that you actually mean what you are writing. All I’ll ask is, please stop digging. There is no proof that ordinary men acted badly, but there is proof that at least two men put women and children first and then paid with their lives. It is extremely offensive given what we know to claim that men on the ship couldn’t be bothered to help those weaker than they were*.

One of the things that I see in the posts from Sheila is an abject denial (or ignorance) of the realities of war for men. Men get injured and killed. If captured, they are also subject to torture, rape/sodomy, and all manner of mental and physical abuses that I can hardly begin to think about. Women are no more or less vulnerable in these situations than men.

I also am a firm believer in manners and etiquette. I think this is a responsibility that we hold to each other. I offer help when I can assist, and I strive to be polite in my interactions. I find it frustrating when people are rude — but it has nothing to do with sex/gender and what is “owed.” I just find good manners to be socially beneficial.

That being said, there are times when “etiquette” isn’t practical in the moment, and that never bothers me. But, yes, rudeness and entitlement do.

Likening a woman to an unattended 8 year old child is fine by me. That’s about right.

Just amazing that they can pull that out of their pocket when it suits them, and then gaslight themselves and totally and truly forget what they just said, deciding that things are actually some other way, to suit whatever purpose of the moment. Can they not see that they do that?

Do they know it, but just try it anyway, knowing they can confound or bewitch most men who try to contradict their madness or call them on it? Or do they really not realize that they do that?

And he called MEN to be paternalistic as well. Don’t like that, Sheila? Go complain to God that He is doing it wrong. Patriarchy is God’s way, God’s design. Remember how Christ is the head of the church, just as the Man is the head of the woman?

Yeah. That’s paternal patriarchy right there.

Love it or hate it, but at least accept it, lest ye be found a lying sinner.

The entitlement complex really is something to behold. It is really difficult to wrap my head around how some women can blithely demand blood & sacrifice from other human beings by virtue of them owning a penis. They truly have no comprehension of what men have had to endure on their behalf. And the second some guys decide they are done being human shock absorbers—in an era where even traditional women look askance at patriarchal gender roles—there is a hue and cry to no end.

“I think sometimes we forget how vulnerable women can be. I am not saying that Ms. Logan acted foolishly; she likely knew what she was risking, and CBS likely did, too, and she chose to go anyway.”

Gregoire has already ingested the Medea fem-prop, as in the original headlines, that Lara Logan was “brutally raped and assaulted” etc

to my knowledge, no evidence has yet emerged (despite the ubiquity of handheld cams during that “riot”) that Little Lara was brutalized or “raped” . . . aside from the constant screeching of western women and their Medea, that is

as is so often the case with western women, Gregoire is arguing that Logan represents the “vulnerability” of women that “we sometimes forget” (yeah, right, as if we’d ever be allowed to forget the constant and endless Victimness of poor downtrodden females)

western governments, education, and Medea are now expert at manipulating the hysteric fear and selfishness of females to produce the desired (feminist) collective response — this is as evident in Gregiore’s (erroneous) assumptions about Logan, as it is in the agitational propaganda about how the Costa Concordia men failed at masculinity by allowing “helpless” (yet Empowered!) women to drown

these collective assumptions — and the female fear/rage that inevitably and consistently result from them — are then used to justify and rationalize even more apartheid against boys and men, because, as everybody can see, they “deserve” it

You guys know that there IS such a thing as a submissive woman, right? One who really will do what they are told…. that will not speak disrespectfully and will even call their man “Master” or whatever he wishes or requires?

And that these women KNOW and acknowledge that they are crazy and unstable and CRAVE the leadership of a man… the women I know that are like this, LOVE IT, and will have it no other way. Most women are submissives, they just don’t know it yet. They will have their own regretful “red pill” to swallow one day… MEN: just hold fast on the shit tests and wield authority with skill and you CAN have a submissive woman. Even the most angry staunch feminist cannot resist the innate attraction to a Dominant man… and many of them know just how good a few spankings will do them…. the most alpha chicks can be the most desirable submissives, when trained.

I have this right now. My submissive will do whatever I say, no matter how unpleasant. I do not abuse this lovely creature (though I am tough on her) She sets herself at my feet lovingly, though she is a strong, smart woman who is highly competent and could go through life entirely without a man. She is even financially independent.

Let me tell you, her submission makes her beautiful, and this is a woman I can open doors for (sometimes, when I please) and this is a woman who I will stand in harm’s way for. She has earned it, just as Deti said. For her submission, she gains my favor and my protection and provision.

I cannot overstate how beautiful it is, and how beautiful she looks, sitting at my feet.

and how beautiful it makes her feel to do so.

I know feminism is a scourge on our society, but at my house it is vanquished, and there is order.

I especially like the part about women who would (supposedly) be taking the rapes, tortures, and murders meant (by God?) for men.

Looks as if she is, in deed, one of those who would shame (young, able-bodied) men for not being willing to stand in harms way for some random and strange woman.

I also enjoyed how she added that little nod to those brave, heroic single moms. It’s not like those men who are fathers represent any real value (alive) to their children, don’t you know. [/snark]

Oops! Almost forgot to add something about the issue of allowing women to take on inordinate risks. Would that also include driving? How about flying?. Perhaps we should also preclude women from going to bars, from drinking, and any other activities which might put them at an inordinate risk

And, where the Hell is Mark Richardson to preach at us about men wrongly pursuing their personal autonomy, and not getting on with “the program”?

In his 1933 lecture on ‘Femininity,’ from the New Introductory Lectures, Freud wrote: “The suppression of women’s aggressiveness which is prescribed for them constitutionally and imposed on them socially favours the development of powerful masochistic impulses, which succeed, as we know, in binding erotically the destructive trends which have been diverted inwards. Thus masochism, as people say, is truly feminine.”

I’m going to dig into my Freud writings this weekend because I was discussing MacBeth with someone who related it to an occurance that happened on the television show Big Brother. A man was holding a knife up to a womans throat on the show during their seduction saying he would kill her, and she was visibly aroused by it. Many people claimed this was the product of a sick mind, but my friends felt that, like in MacBeth, a woman being able to weild a murderous psychopath is intensely arousing. And so I thought back to Freud and the Thanatos Drive, I must investigate this.

a woman being able to weild a murderous psychopath is intensely arousing

Well this is the extreme end of dominance, isn’t it. This is why sexual dominance works so well. It doesn’t have to be actually violent or involve real risk or injury (the knife seems a bit much, for instance); it’s just the knowledge that her life is in his hands.

As for actual murderous crazies, I’m not sure if it’s her imagined ability to “wield” him so much as the knowledge that he could literally kill her if he so chose and that her agency is non-existent. There’s a reason infamous death row psychopaths get piles of love letters from women.

they do have masochistic tendencies, IMHO because of two key things- first off, because they are creatures of “sensation” they equate thrills or excitement to happiness. Highs, lows, curveballs… all good. That’s why they start pointless fights- they need the stimulation!!! The sensation of pleasure, mixed with sensations of pain, is HIGH stimulation.

Also, women love pain/discipline because they know they are dirty little whores inside (if only in their thought life, if not living it out) and this makes them feel better so they don’t self-torment and become destructive. A safe outlet to express these sensations gives them everything they want/need without them having to be total psychos or whores, and largely removes their self-destructive tendencies that cause them to hate themselves.

A man who understands and accepts them and knows how to manage that shit will shake a woman’s world to the core…. it’s often a moment of them realizing for the first time what they have been searching for all along. Its better to accept and manage the dark side of a woman instead of just bitching about it (beta) or abusing them for having it… or pretending its not there. If you show a girl that you know how it works and what to do, and that you don’t hate her for being the dirty whore she knows she is, you can get more intimacy from a woman than you ever dreamed.

And with the extra stimulation, you can keep her around as long as you wish. Girls don’t flake on men who have the power to not only Dominate sexually, but also make her feel more beautiful… especially after she’s been hating herself for so long…

@Joshua- only God knows how many dudes a chick has been with. There is NO way to ever really know, not ever. That being the case, I don’t ever ask. Even if they volunteer the info, it could be inaccurate. Even if its the TRUE number, how do I know?

I also think its weak to ask a chick that in general. I try to use my intuition to see how the carousel’s been treating them.

Your comments are interesting. But I don’t endorse your brand of relationship, despite its apparent advantages for both man and woman.

I think you might have misunderstood my first comment on this thread. My comment above did not pertain romantic or marital relationships. I was describing a situation in which a woman I am not related to demands that, for example, I exit an elevator first to see if it is safe, Or demands that I give up a seat on a lifeboat for her. Or demands that I defend her against a physical attack. If a woman not related to me expects me to do that, she has to follow my directions and do what I tell her. For example, “Don’t move” or “Don’t talk” or “Follow me” or “Stay here”. Circumstances demand that one person make decisions like that, and for the remainder to follow. That wouldn’t apply specifically to a relationship.

There are dominant and submissive roles in a typical male-female relationship, but every one I have heard of has taken on a decidedly different character than what you describe. I would not expect a wife to call her husband “Master”. I would expect her to follow his lead and take the paths he lays out, and for him to have final say after she has had input into a major decision.

It’s about time this stuff is openly discussed.
@TFH it looks like this captian that wreck that ship is turning out to be the spartagus we talked about on the spearhead. The women are really showing their asses on this and finally more men are seeing it. I think those ladies going make Dalrock see the only solution is going to come from the spearhead assholes. (MGTOW) Don’t let them break you Dalrock we need you to teach the 3 and 4 year old girls today how to be wifes and happy women. The PUA,cads,MGTOW,grasseaters, and pimps and playes will teach the rest about the cock carousel,reaping what you sow,childless spinterhood, maybe even get that female suicide rate equal with mens.
I think you have done wonders opening eyes on this subject Dalrock. Even a few women seem to be noticing that men are on to them. (Doesn’t mean a thing)

Your past comments indicate you are caring in your firm dominance of women, women crave this, are willing, are content, are happy, and it works so very well. They don’t unduly challenge you and their self-destructive tendencies and internal insecurities are managed.

Thats not what im talking about. Thrice now, when he makes his “he man woman dominators” statement ive addressed it by asking questions and he always responds with straw-man or ad-hominem come back. Its all very feminist of him. His hamster is astounding.

@Deti… we look like normal people. We function largely like what you describe at the end of your comment. Pretty normal in daylight. But in crisis, our structure and protocols are already in place, and we defeat problems without the drama.

@Joshua – You go ahead and ask all your girlies about their partner count. By all means. The only reason I’d ever give a shit about a girl’s partner count is if I were marrying her, and I will never marry again, so…..?

even then, she’ll just lie her ass off. Never underestimate a girl’s capacity for bullshit and evil.

Would you crybaby like Mark Driscoll because your lover was with some dude that hurts your little feelers? Srsly, why ask? Why care? So I can find out if she’s a whore? Of course she is, man!

I am glad you are amazed by my hamster. I am similarly amazed that you think you can ask a girl about her sexual history and get any semblance of truth or accuracy. If you really think that, maybe your hamster is even more fit than mine. Rock on, Joshua

I think your looking for answers in the wrong place. As far as BDSM being the answer i fear you will find these girls are just looking for another way to abscond responsibility along the same lines as a born again virgin. Anything that goes wrong is your fault because you weren’t dominant enough. The problem with woman isn’t that men aren’t dominate enough its that they aren’t responsible enough. Woman who are truly submissive don’t need a dominate to bring it out. They will definitely flourish under a true dom, but they don’t need one to be submissive.

Also i don’t think poorly of you. Its just that you speak with a very feminist tone. Were you raised by a single mom?

A woman cannot submit to a marshmallow. In order for there to be submission, there has to be something to which to submit. There is no shadow without light. “Bringing it out” doesn’t even factor into it.

Submissive is an adjective. Submit is a verb. You cannot equate the two. A woman cannot submit without something to submit too, yes. But she can be submissive without something to submit too. Do you understand the difference?

But she can be submissive without something to submit too. Do you understand the difference?

Of course I understand the difference, but the vast majority of women will submit under the right circumstances, and that requires a man to be dominant to some degree or another. A man is made for this as a woman is made for submission to a man.

I haven’t seen shaming language, straw men or ad hominems from Samuel, frankly. Perhaps you could point them out.

@CL-“but the vast majority of women will submit under the right circumstances”

What are the right circumstances?

Exactly, some mythical circumstance that enables woman to constantly keep “moving the goal posts.” What you said is no different than a woman with a 486 point check list. Its another way for them to abscond responsibility by keeping things murky. im not saying a man shouldn’t be dominate, but Samuel’s whole point rests on men shouldering ALL of the responsibility.

It is a woman’s nature to test a man to feel his strength. This is “shit testing.” A normal woman tests, is reassured of his fortitude and then becomes comfortable being submissive. If she tests and finds him lacking then she will rarely feel secure enough to act submissive. People can believe all they want that it “shouldn’t” be this way, yet beliefs do not change reality.

I’m not talking about shit testing. What I’m talking about goes beyond shit testing. Otherwise i would’ve used the phrase “shit testing.” Also I’m talking specifically about BDSM. Not woman in general.

I am not new to BDSM. I think your interpretation of how it works, and mine, are different. I have never had a problem with your concerns of the “sub” just blaming the Dom for not being Dominant enough, nor excusing themselves. I do not tolerate excuses. But the fact is, that dark and twisted side of a woman is always gonna be there, and it has to be actively managed. It does not ever ‘go away’.

It seems that you have identified that BDSM is not a solution or answer the the problem of poor female behavior. Of course, ideally, it would be great to have them just knock it off, but that is not going to happen. So therefore it seems there are few options left to a man. Abstain from women? Hate on them?

My preference, based on the options as they appear to me, is for me to establish a structure that will give me better harmony and success in my interactions with girls, so that I can enjoy them instead of hate them. I don’t rail against them endlessly for being fuckups, and I actually like them, as illogical and foolish as that may be. Girls are fun to play with. Often annoying, sometimes hilarious. Since I am a father, my authority structure translates nicely. I have found enormous success so far. I don’t take ALL the responsibility, in fact, I hold women highly responsible (sometimes for the first time in their life) If they screw up, I address it swiftly. They know it. They like it. It works for me.

I have been known to come off as a condescending prick sometimes, so if I have done that here, I shall apologize directly. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, my friend. Each man must find his own way, I reckon. If you have an approach that is also effective, sweet. I’d like to know more.

I didn’t mean to derail this. But i think everyone missed what i was trying to say. I wasn’t talking about the specific i was talking about the general. Woman using BDSM as a cover for absconding from responsibility, essentially placing all of it on the dominant. I’m not saying that individually you let the woman act irresponsibly but that it can change on a dime. Your advertising BDSM as a cure all like PUA’s advertise game as a cure all. You need both dominance and game but neither are a cure all. Its clear to me now the problem is the way i am articulating my argument.

Women will never be allowed in combat roles in the military. You’d be surprised how totally impossible it is. Spend some time in infantry and you’ll figure out in a week why it can’t happen. There’s a reason that New Zealand is essentially the only western country with women in combat roles to begin with. It’s totally undoable. The women who have worked alongside infantry for whatever reason figure out why it’s impossible for them to be in infantry or similar jobs. There’s a reason that the percentage of women in the Marines has more than halved, and it’s dropped drastically in the Army (I think the Marines went down to like 5% female…) since 9/11. The military was 20% female, now it’s less than 14%, and with the draw down the FOB positions are being cut first, which are the only positions females can have, so the number is going to drop further (the combat MOS’s will see minimal hits, because they are the most vital). That said, the military does need females to fill many roles, so I don’t believe they shouldn’t be there at all. We would have horrible deficiencies, especially among our doctors and nurses, without women.

I don’t know where to post this, but recently a female FB friend complained about no “men in suits” volunteering to help her to get her hand luggage out of the overhead compartment. I asked her if she would volunteer to crawl on the floor to get something that I had dropped on the floor, since that task is more difficult for a big man like me. I also told her that, for reasons of security and quich unloading, the personnel should not allow people to take on board luggage that they have a difficulty handling without help.

“And women are at a far greater risk when they are in combat than men, because if we are captured, far worse things are almost guaranteed to be done to us than will ever be done to a man.”

I doubt this woman understands male psychology. The female combat troops of the Red Army regularly fell into German captivity during WW2. Based on the stuff I’ve written about this subject, they were routinely tortured and killed, but not raped. That wasn’t standard practice, as far as I know. I don’t see how that’s ‘far worse’ than what either German or Soviet male POWs had to endure.

7Man left a comment yesterday about Gregoire’s post at her site on “Is Porn Cheating?”

I went there yesterday to make the point that emotional pornography: bodice ripper novels, women’s channel movies, Austen novels and the “Love Comes Softly” series can be just as toxic and deleterious to marriage. One of my comments was deleted. The other made the point that Austen and the “Love Comes Sotfly” series paint a picture of idealized men which do not exist, are secondary to women, can damage marriage, give women fictitious and unrealistic portrayals of marriage, and cause them to have unralistic expectations. I pointed out that this was more or less analogous to hardcore porn for men.

Gregoire conflated my statement with saying that no one could ever watch TV or a movie, or ever read anything, because my definition eliminated all forms of film or literary entertainment. I said no such thing.

This is the strawman fallacy. I made an argument. Gregoire states an argument that I did not make and stakes out a position I did not take. She then attributes the argument to me or conflates what I said with the position she articulated. She then proceeds to call the sham argument “ridiculous” (which it is). The problem is: I did not argue the defeated point.

It is not possible to have rational communications with people who argue or debate in this way.

I don’t even know why people bother to argue with women in the Gregoire frame of mind. Just put it up front. If you don’t have sex with me, three times or more a week, when we’re married, I will look at porn. If you don’t like that ultimatum, either have the sex, as it’s your duty as my wife, or turn a blind eye and allow the porn.

However, if women get the idea that they get to determine what is healthy for a marriage, then everything they like is good and everything a man likes is bad. It’s rather simple, if a woman is not giving her husband sex on an on going basis, she has no reason at all to complain about porn. It really is not the same as having an affair, an affair requires TWO people consenting to have sex with each other. She can call porn bad or evil and I would agree with her, but it’s not having an affair.

When she uses the ‘porn’ argument, she’s looking for another reason for women to use divorce. That’s it and when you realise that, you will also realise that in her mind, only a man can give a women a reason to divorce him, a women never does evil stuff ever and therefore can never give a man a reason for divorce; if she does, then it’s the duty of the man to forgive her, no such duty exists on the shoulders of women. A Man does something ‘evil’, no forgiveness, divorce him and take his money and children. A women commits an act of evil, you must forgive her, lest you be judged by God yourself for her mistake.

That’s the mind of Gregoire, there is no point in engaging in a real debate with her.

And before people actually think I advise porn, I DO NOT, but I think it’s about time to issue such an ultimatum, either women live up to their sexual responsibilities to their husbands, as their husbands should for them, or they realise that porn is the lesser evil than actually having a REAL affair.

If women can make such fatalistic ultimatums then so should men. Here’s such an ultimatum.

Women, read the Cosmo, log onto Facebook, read another Austen fake love novel or watch a silly Twilight film and the man has every right in the world to divorce you, take half your shit and your children.

in [Gregoire’s] mind, only a man can give a women a reason to divorce him, a women never does evil stuff ever and therefore can never give a man a reason for divorce; if she does, then it’s the duty of the man to forgive her, no such duty exists on the shoulders of women. A Man does something ‘evil’, no forgiveness, divorce him and take his money and children. A women commits an act of evil, you must forgive her, lest you be judged by God yourself for her mistake.

I reckon Gregoire would rethink this if the churches in the western world would return to the Biblical standard of, no remarriage after divorce! Most women file for divorce with the idea that they can find someone “better” — like the flirty doctor in Fireproof, or the whole Cheat, Betray, Leave nonsense.

If they weren’t allowed to do this — if the divorced “Christians” were forced to choose either permanent celibacy or giving up their “Christian” social identity — I think divorce would seem far, far less attractive, and would only be resorted to in cases of genuine, severe abuse (in which case it truly is better to be alone.)

Austen novels? Yes, they’ve been embraced by the feminists but only because Austen was a woman. If you read essays on her you would be amazed at the hoops the average feminists jumps through to show how “poor Austen” was corrupted by the patriarchal society of her day.

“Idealized men”? Really? As opposed to what exactly? The men are dominant and all bend the women. They don’t “rip bodices”. The women are usually the flighty ones. Austen in her personal letters was very upfront about that. One has to wonder if you have actually _read_ an Austen novel. Don’t judge the author by the mass of followers. Otherwise I’d have to assume that Tolkien was a tree loving pagan.

Of course this get’s to my concern about all of the Sheilla griping. I only started reading her from what was mentioned here. Considering the fact she’s been indoctrinated for near on forty years she doesn’t seem that bad. You don’t have to tell her she’s right, but you can give her a bit of a handhold in the right direction. Neg’ing her to death won’t accomplish very much. And this isn’t about the OP, this is about the comments here. The OP is nice and on target (even if I do think Darlock draws the worst possible comparison).

No remarriage after divorce. . . For the initiator? As women initiate most divorces, and most husbands are taken by surprise, should the men be penalised?

I have a widowed sister law who is shortly remarrying a divorcee. He fits the pattern. Looks like ex wifey fell out of love and decided to ditch him. He is a normal delta, afaik. Meanwhile, she rides the carousel, presumably with her new church’s ful approval.

It seems like so called christian girls are in many ways no different to their secular sisters. That would certainly explain so many of their inexplicable behaviours. And yes, i now know not to believe anything they say, but only what they do.

dalrock,
“I have to say I’m still stunned at the discussion. I can’t understand how a group of people can so casually discuss the way others must sacrifice for them, because those others aren’t worth as much as they are.”

I guess you never bothered to read all the evidence I have gathered. If you did? You would not be stunned.

@Bob Smith
“Is she seriously arguing that rape is worse than torture? Being raped is no doubt extremely unpleasant, but it doesn’t disfigure you and rarely causes permanent injury.”

That depends on what you think rape is.

Also depends if you’re going by the assumption male on female rape is just will be like normal sex penis in vagina only it’s an unwanted hassle for said woman.

Rather than likely rough unlibricated likely to tear and cause internal damage/bleeding sex. Or that said rape won’t also come with torture via sexual sadism.

Always amusing to see how many guys diminish rape it’s just a unpleasantness like eating rather than a violent sexual act done upon your body with someone entering your body if it’s male-on-female or male-on-male or you entering their body for female-on-male

I tend to think because rape is so solidly seen as male on female and most guys just think of its just unwanted penis in vagina she’ll get over it. Oh no mention of long lasting psychological effects, depression, suicide and of course it’s just penis in vagina with nothing bad happening there’s no hitting, cutting the body, sexual torture, cutting off genital parts, or heck even penetrating her anally/vaginally with foreign objects even a knife.

What would probably be best suited is focusing on the insinuation that male war prisoners aren’t raped like female war prisoners rather than diminishing rape to be unpleasant.

To be fair I saw one responsibility this universal concept of honor & respeect. Egh I only give to those who earned it the only ones who get free passes are the environment, animals, children, and the elderly.

“I can’t understand how a group of people can so casually discuss the way others must sacrifice for them, because those others aren’t worth as much as they are.”
Were you shocked because it was men being categorized as not being worth as much as they are? My experience has been every group is categrorized as such- blacks, whites, asians, men, women, children. Every group seems to get a bit of belittement in American society. If it can be thought of as for their own good to enslave a race and women are inferior to men solely because they don’t have a penis then it shouldn’t be that hard see some think a group should sacrifice for them.

I only disagree with one comment:
“Feminist society has made sure that men feel wary of ever interacting publiclly or privately with any woman they are not related to. ”
That’s more like American rape teachings of “Don’t Get Rape” rather than “Don’t Rape”.
When you teach rape as if it’s only male-on-female and to women it’s your fault if it happens as you didn’t do this and ignoring men rape as if male rapists are monsters rather than men who are likely to be someone’s guy friend, father, brother, uncle, grandfather. In fact going by most studies it’s most likely to be said woman’s father, uncle, friend, etc.

So you learn that what you do/wear can make men flip into a rapist rather than some men are just rapists whether genes, environment, or learned behavior. After all men who are just rapists would mean that your brother, father, uncle, etc could be a rapist that’s too close to home for most. Plus identifying some men are rapists somehow connects to most men as tryiing to shame them for their sexuality WTCupcake rather than not all men are good.

As for feminist society making men wary….
plenty of Hollaback sites showing men aren’t afraid to interact with women well more like sexually fondle/harass them but egh.
plenty of women getting approached or catcalled.
Loads of active PUA forums, sites, blogs, and chat rooms also don’t seem to have.

The only thing I’ve seen men be wary of interacting with women is fear of rejection…not really a feminist fault.

If you really want to talk about paternalistic perhaps you should look into how women get lighter sentences. It tends to be male judges who give women lighter sentencing hence why I’m going by paternalistic.

“I know it’s counterintuitive, but how many times do we have to see a woman bodily defend her abuser before we learn not to white knight?”
I’ve never seen this. Really never. I’m actually amused by how many women are completely incapable of defending themselves without a weapon.

Can you reasonably state was so stupid or up in the clouds that you felt to be emotional reactive and insult:
1. I saw one responsibility that honor & respect and nowhere did I see her state that women aren’t to uphold this responsibilty as it’s universal.

2. That I disagree it’s American defining rape as male on female and rape teachings of “Don’t Rape” rather than “Don’t Rape” that shows men as all potential rapists rather than some men are rapists rather feminist society that has made men feel wary of ever interacting publiclly or privately with any woman they are not related to.

3. That something that states more that women have rights, men have responsibilities with a paternalistic is that women get lighter sentences usually when the judge is male.

4. That rape is something extremely unpleasant depending on your view of it but to me it’s a violent sexual act done upon your body and can disfigrue a person and leave permanent injury as well as long term psychological effects, depression, and suicide

5. That rather than diminish rape as just something extremely unpleasant it’d be be best suited is focusing on the insinuation that male war prisoners aren’t raped like female war prisoners rather than diminishing rape to be unpleasant.

Write in a way that actually makes an argument instead of disjoined sentences that read like they are the drunken ramblings of a mentally ill cat lady.

“That rather than diminish rape as just something extremely unpleasant it’d be be best suited is focusing on the insinuation that male war prisoners aren’t raped like female war prisoners rather than diminishing rape to be unpleasant.”

Throughout history, whenever a tribe lost a battle and the men were killed, women had the choice between death (suicide) or rape and being taken into the new tribe. Anybody got any stats on how many killed themselves?

You wimminz have been raising hysteria (particularly accurate word) over rape for too long – we aren’t buying it. Real rape IS evil, it IS wrong, but it isn’t in some special exalted level of evil. And it certainly is not a female victim only issue. And FRA is a serious crime that requires punishment not sympathy.

Ahh, so very clear now. Another sick Jennifer like pervert who is here for the sexual stimulation of barking out at the nearest man to get her panties soaked. Now that we have given you sufficent gina tingles you can retreat to the nearest shower head. You should be ashamed of yourself you sick freak.

Bob Smith
What do you consider extremely rare? I’m wondering what stats you consider rare?

Also where/when did I argue that torture increases the severity of rape? o.O

Let’s look back
“That depends on what you think rape is.

Also depends if you’re going by the assumption male on female rape is just will be like normal sex penis in vagina only it’s an unwanted hassle for said woman.

Rather than likely rough unlibricated likely to tear and cause internal damage/bleeding sex. Or that said rape won’t also come with torture via sexual sadism.

Always amusing to see how many guys diminish rape it’s just a unpleasantness like eating rather than a violent sexual act done upon your body with someone entering your body if it’s male-on-female or male-on-male or you entering their body for female-on-male

I tend to think because rape is so solidly seen as male on female and most guys just think of its just unwanted penis in vagina she’ll get over it. Oh no mention of long lasting psychological effects, depression, suicide and of course it’s just penis in vagina with nothing bad happening there’s no hitting, cutting the body, sexual torture, cutting off genital parts, or heck even penetrating her anally/vaginally with foreign objects even a knife.”

Just me going that it depends on what your definition of male on female rape is for it to be labeled as extremely unpleasant that being it’s just penis in vagina just a little hassle.

This pretty much applies:
“Of course, the other favourite old chestnut is;

“Women’s fertility drops markedly in their mid to late thirties”

cue the response

“but, but, my friend had a baby aged 41, so you must be just lying and trying to oppress me with awkward, patriarchal, facts””

Perhaps I didn’t give facts because I see a repeat pattern of you insulting without provocation, ad hominenms, and projecting. Paul D. Thacker & Dr. Senary

Clip: The report found men over 40 years of age were twice as likely to have a child with down syndrome than those less then 20 years old.
Clip: New point mutations in humans are introduced through the male line, and the number of mutations in sperm increases as men age. This has been known since the 1950s. What is intriguing is why society chooses to ignore this.

There’s something called study paper search engines. I tend to use them when presented with new information.

Seems you don’t like the reality that just because older men can produce sperm that said sperm tends not to be quality.

Egh not really an all the time occurence on your version of history o.O
Women and children were often murdered during said rapes and pillaging…recall that term….

Show where/when I raised hysteria over rape o.O More of your emotions overruling logic…..

I wasn’t asking anyone to buy anything. I stated rape is extremely unpleasant depending on what you think rape is and that rape can cause disfigurement and permanent injuries. Golly gosh the hysteria.

Show where/when did I state rape was some special exalted level of evil o.O More of your emotions overruling logic…..

I stated categorizing rape as extremely unpleasant depends on what you think rape is. I don’t categorize it as such as a sexually violent acts done without consent to a person’s body isn’t something that’s just extremely unpleasant.

Not sure how thinking something is not extremely unpleasant is somehow stating it’s some special exalted level of evil.

Then again you’re emotional not logical.

“And it certainly is not a female victim only issue.”
Show where/when did I state rape was a female victim only issue o.O More of your emotions overruling logic…..

Let’s look back:
“male on female rape ”
hmm..me stating what type of rape. If victims were only female then I wouldn’t have.

“I tend to think because rape is so solidly seen as male on female”
hm…me stating generally others seen rape as male on female

“What would probably be best suited is focusing on the insinuation that male war prisoners aren’t raped like female war prisoners rather than diminishing rape to be unpleasant.”
Oh my me stating men can be rape victims.

I’d ask where you got your intrepretations but I can guess….your emotions and reading what you want.

So dolly, no valentines cards from the cats then? Thought you’d come here and lather up?
Ah more shaming language. You do realize that it can be reversed back to you right? LMAO XD

Wait you probably don’t as you’re emotional not logical right now.

So you’re incapable of showing where I stated anything like you claimed I was demanding LMAOXD so you revert back to ad hominems as you have no counterargument

No cats.

I did get valentines cards, teddy bears, balloons, chocolates, roses, and jewelry from several guys despite my clearly defined disinterest in them. American movies and their persistent guy wins in the end movies.

I’ll be doing the same thing I do every Valentine’s Day since elementary have a bonfire with the gifts I don’t give to friends, bb gun the balloons, and give away the chocolates/flowers/balloons to the elderly at the several nursing homes I volunteer at.

“What NUMBERS are you talking about you prat? ”
Show me where/when I talked about numbers.

Who me where/when I listed numbers.

Once again I’m not talking numbers and you’re in fact on the wrong page.

Let’s look back
“Actually both genders fertility drop generally when 23. Men lose quality and women lose quantity. Then when mid to late thirties hit men lose quantity and women lose quality.”

This is all I stated about the topic.

You stated that statement is me trying to make state fertility is equal in decreasing. o.O
“Because numb-nuts you are demanding that the decrease in fertility be regarded as equal between men and women.”

I ask you to show me where/when I demanded anything like that…no surprise you couldn’t because I didn’t.

Not sure how you it to mean anything other than men lose quality then quantity and women lose quantity then quality.

I even broke it down for you.
Both genders lose fertility generally when 23.
*No mention of comparing amounts or the word equal.*

Men lose quality and women lose quantity.
*No mention of comparing amounts or the word equal.*

Then when mid to late thirties hit men lose quantity and women lose quality.”
*No mention of comparing amounts or the word equal.*

The only possibly equal thing that could be gleamed is that decline generally starts at 23 and really kicks off mid to late thirties.

So how did you get your intrepretation? Oh right more of your emotion overruling logic..

“Seems you don’t like the reality that just because older men can produce sperm that said sperm tends not to be quality.” couldn’t give a toss over the subject, anyway it’s worse for teh wmminz
LMAO XD you’re so cute playing the who’s got it worse card.

Back your condescention up with anything other than made up facts and false-equivocation. You will not be able to, so you are nothing more than a narcissistic nut with bad grammar and a desperate need to learn what that dot at the end of words means. You have nothing, and are nothing, and cannot appeal to anything other than your own thoughts. Your inflated-ego will only make you more and more insane (a bonfire for made-up items, true or not, is a symptom of your thought process).

Go away shrew, make sure next time your bring those journals to the table if you are dumb enough to return. But you are, and your narcissism will not allow this post to go without an attempt at smarm or smug language. I am looking forward to it skank.

“After Women done with men After Age 55” was where I stated men lose quality then quantity and women lose quantity then quality.

I already backed up these facts with 2 main names and told you look it up in a paper search engine aka scholar search engine as I do whenever I’m presented with new information. I don’t spoon feed as I stated when I gave the names and clips of information when it was first indirectly asked for on the that page where I put the statement and where it resulted in ad hominens by your & projections by Just1x.

I gave information despite receiving insults first and repeatedly and elusions of any attempt of rationality by me first asking what exactly are you against in my statement for you to the ad hominens then repeatedly asking where/when did I state anything like you felt the need to argue with Just1X’s projections and your ad hominens and shaming language.

I wanted to see how emotional reactive, ad hominen first, shaming language evasion tactics commenters would react. I gave my statements and providied information.
I’m just seeing if you’re so engrossed in insulting & if Just1X’s still on what he projected not what was there.

Despite my requests/attempts for you to show rationality I wasn’t interested in that as I doubt you could.
JustiX and you on two separate pages:
went straight to insults
were unable to show any reasonable argument as your only stances were insults and whatever nonsense you projected
were even unable to provide where you got this nonsense such as Just1X’s claims I was trying to state this & I was demanding this o.O
….more like you reading what you want and letting your emotionals fill in the blanks rather than the logical mind seeing what’s there
showed a repeated pattern of incapable of being logical or to state where you got your own projections it seemed a bit usueless

1. You showed your irrationality being so focused in insulting me that you claim I didn’t back up my facts when I already did and right after a commenter shows a clip of information that I did.
I just didn’t back them up in the way that suited you aka spoon feeding. I also won’t be providing you the names again that you missed in your pursuit of emotional reactive ad hominens. I’ll spoon feed you the steps to get the information:
Look up the names on the other comment page where I gave it when it was indirectly asked for via Just1X’s you didn’t provide any facts.
Look up the information.

2. Just1X’s showed his irrationality with his focus on what he wanted to be there not what was there.
He claimed that I saying fertility loss is equal in the genders & that I had demanded there was equal loss of fertility in men and women.
Despite not being able to show where/when I said this as he claims when asked repeatedly.
Despite not being able to show where/when I demanded what he claims when asked repeatedly.
Despite not being able to show where/when I compared the amount of fertility or used the word equal when asked repeatedly.
Despite me breaking down the statement to show that I did no comparing the amount fertility or use the word equal.
Despite me asking where he got this projection.
Despite my statement being:
““Actually both genders fertility drop generally when 23. Men lose quality and women lose quantity. Then when mid to late thirties hit men lose quantity and women lose quality.””

…yeah I thought most logical people would get men lose quality then quantity, women lose quantity then quality and the ages it occurs.
…not fertility loss amounts in men and women are equal, that men losing quality then quantity & women losing quantity then quality is equal, and whatever else his mind got

Just1X still asked me after all this when I provided the information he indirectly asked for what numbers I’m talking about because in his mind I’m stilling saying fertility loss numbers are equal rather than what I stated.

I told him he was on the incorrect page as it’s “Are Women Done With Men After Age 55” where I stated gender quality/quantity lost and gave the information he indirectly asked for. Then broke it down again and asked him where/when I mentioned numbers or gave numbers.

He hasn’t returned. You have.

With the more ad hominens and claiming that I didn’t provide information to back up my facts.

When I already did on the page I listed my statement right after it was first indirectly asked for.

While one could understand how you missed that since this is the wrong page as my statement of quality quantity lost isn’t on this page but came into discussion via Just1Xs post about his number focus from what he looked up on the information I provided.

One could understand if you didn’t post multiple insults on the page that I provided the information after I did.

One could understand if on the incorrect page before your claim & insults Just1X hadn’t clipped a bit of said information he looked up with the names I provided when he brought up quality quantity lose on the wrong page.

Is this you trying to play rational by having it seem I didn’t back up my information by posting on wrong page where my statement was posted and ad hominen/strawman by you and projected by Just1X.

Or you’re just lasping on that you went emotional reactive on two separate pages and can’t keep them together as Just1X couldn’t as well as being so focused on insulting me you don’t even pay attention to what is there?

So how’s it feel trying to insult someone when for missing evidence when the information was already provided for? LMAO XD

Me narcissitic….egh. Oh I already did my bonfire it’s still burning and will remain so as they normally last 3 days.

So playing psychoanalyst what about your own thought processes:
automatic ad hominens
incapability to back up any counterargument with reason
shaming language & ad hominens whenever presented with the question where/when did you get whatever you were projecting
shaming language evasive of all requests to show rationality
your “logic” that being a woman means she’s a feminist
*being so focused on looking for the next thing to insult you missed that it wasn’t missing and already provided even when Just1X shows a clip of it in a comment preceding yours.*
^ LMAO XD this one is just hilarious……

A lot of time/energy spent on an opinion that isn’t worth anything to you as you stated women’s opinions are worth anything. LMAO XD

So you when are your little ad hominens going to getting amusing again? I’m here for the amusement of your cute little insults.

You’re little hissy fit is still cute though.

Continue to post so I have something really amusing to laugh at while on the way to my sorority’s valentines dance.

I am sick of the misandry. I’m also sick of misogyny. Women, you already have “equality”. You are just trying to take over completely. You want us where you were 700 years ago. (revenge?) Men, you secretly want this. You want to be ruled by your significant women. It is every man’s fantasy to be taken by his wife. I think the proper soloution is for both sides to accept it, and admit it to one another. Girls, tell your boyfriends, “I want you under my feet and accept your place as my personal tool.” And guys, tell your girls, “I will gladly surrender to you and accept you as my personal queen!” Then, we both get along. Women get what they want: Submissive men. (Stop acting like you want him to be dominant and rule over you, when you in fact want to rule over him). Guys get what they want: To fear his wife. To gain his strength through the weakness his surrender. (There! I said it.) Because this pretending is getting old. Women pretending that they don’t want to dominate us, and men pretending that we don’t want to be dominated! Enough is enough!

So I once had this best friend from all the way back in high school… (my ONLY friend from those days, it turns out)… and he is a Cassanova type. He is capable of picking women up off the streets, and damn near impregnating them that same night… which he does quite often with ME along as Third-Fucking-Wheel.

The context here, is that he gets laid all the time, and I’m not even sure if I should even bother to speak to women at all.

By the time in which this story takes place, he’s had a girl-friend for a while… who it turns out cheated on him no-less than TWICE. He’s screamed at her over the phone in public, and somehow still refuses to just dump her and move on.

One day, I went to his place to hang-out with him. He tells me that his girlfriend is PREGNANT, and that there’s at least a Chance that the child is Not Even HIS. He also goes on-and-on about his… (sigh)… FEELINGS… and how he’s not even sure if he can trust her anymore. He also mentioned getting physically VIOLENT with her because of it.

I say, “You CAN’T trust her. SMART men would NOT trust her. Dump her, Find somebody else… it’s not like you CAN’T!” Most importantly, I also added, “Men who hurt women end up in fucking JAIL… because they are the REAL BITCHES.”

He Continued to go on and on about that shit. He even fucking Recognized that I was basically playing the world’s-smallest-violin for him.

I tell her that it is NOT good to see her there, she mentioned leaving. My (former) friend started SCREAMING at her to stay and talk about the issue. I take that as my cue to up and leave.

Here’s the kicker: She Asked ME to STAY. Probably thinking that I would… PROTECT her.

I did NOT. I LEFT. I left her to her own fate.

Now this woman already has a damn CHILD… a fucking DAUGHTER. I figured that if this woman was a real adult who ought to be raising children, she would have chosen to leave on her own, and went back home to take care of her kid… NOT stay there and decided to risk being an ass-hole’s punching-bag.

Still… I write this because to this day… I still feel… GUILTY… like I fucking SHOULD HAVE stayed to protect her. I am an ex-Marine, and a Muay-Thai kickboxer… it’s not like I COULDN’T, or that I haven’t WANTED to be a hero since childhood. I could have totally DESTROYED his sorry ass. I damn near broke his arm once for touching me on the shoulder (I was raped as a child… I do NOT let MEN put their hands on me).

The next day, I decided to hang out with him ONE last time. I ask him how his girlfriend is… how things are with her.

His response: “Things with her are Great, and I CAN FUCK ANY OTHER BITCH ANYTIME I WANT!!”